D.P. SINGH, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against a revisional order dated 19.10.2005 by which the eviction suit filed by the petitioner-landlord has been dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court has been set aside.

3. The petitioner-landlord instituted a SCC Suit No. 24 of 2000 before the Judge, Small Causes Court for the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default, subletting etc.

4. After the parties had led their evidence, the trial vide its judgment and order dated 25.5.2001 returned a finding that the respondent-tenant was a defaulter and had sublet the building, accordingly, it decreed the suit.

5. Aggrieved, the respondent-tenant filed Revision No. 84 of 2001 which has been allowed by the impugned order.

6.. Apart from raising several arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Revisional Court apart from illegally re-appreciating the evidence on record, had erred in law in holding that the sub tenancy was not proved. .

7. The consistent case of the petitioner-landlord was hat the disputed shop was let out to Sushil Kumar only and without consent of the District Magistrate or the lan